Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RANDELOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RANÐELOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 66641/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  Given that the criminal trial is still under way, the issue to be assessed is not whether the judicial authorities, as guardians of the laws laid down to protect lives, were determined to sanction those responsible, if appropriate, but whether they had proceeded with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Mucibabic v. Serbia, no. 34661/07, § 132, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  HEMSWORTH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating an alleged infringement of the right to life may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Mucibabic, cited above, § 132; see, also, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 108, 4 May 2001; McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 130, ECHR 2013; and Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, § 69, 16 July 2013).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating an alleged infringement of the right to life may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Mucibabic, cited above, § 132; see, also, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 108, 4 May 2001; McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 130, ECHR 2013; and Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, § 69, 16 July 2013).

 
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  The Court reiterates that violations have also been found where a trial continued unduly (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 151, ECHR 2009, a case where the criminal proceedings at issue had lasted for more than six years and were still pending).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99

  TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  In that regard, the Court would stress that the passage of time inevitably erodes the amount and quality of evidence available and the appearance of a lack of diligence casts doubt on the good faith of the investigative efforts (see Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 92, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  It also prolongs the ordeal for members of the family (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating an alleged infringement of the right to life may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Mucibabic, cited above, § 132; see, also, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 108, 4 May 2001; McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 130, ECHR 2013; and Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, § 69, 16 July 2013).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  Also, it does not consider that a criminal complaint lodged by the eleventh applicant would have been capable of altering to any significant extent the course of the investigation that had been made (see, mutatis mutandis, Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 110 in fine, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  In particular, the Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and lodge their applications with due expedition once they are or should have become aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others, cited above, § 158).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  In particular, the Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and lodge their applications with due expedition once they are or should have become aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others, cited above, § 158).
• EGMR, 07.03.2014 - 40348/08

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 44328/05

  PIRTSKHALAISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 26446/06

  KHVICHIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC